Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So much for social media. Hope you Canadian enjoyed for the most part.Ironically, it’s a lefty that is suing over Tweets that link him to the Clintons and Pizzagate. So let this be a reminder lefties, no one gets between these sycophants and their kids, not even Twitter.
Twatter execs of course, are stunned at the ruling:
Ironically, it’s a lefty that is suing over Tweets that link him to the Clintons and Pizzagate. So let this be a reminder lefties, no one gets between these sycophants and their kids, not even Twitter.
Twatter execs of course, are stunned at the ruling:
Comical, lefties fighting lefties!
So you believe that slandering and defaming of someone is perfectly fine an should not have repercussions or remedy for the person being slandered?As soon as 230 is taken away in the USA, social .media and so called free speech, dies....
When they can be sued, for what users say.... then every word posted has to be moderated by them.... freedom is removed from everyone.
Rightwing hypocrisy on full display.Ironically, it’s a lefty that is suing over Tweets that link him to the Clintons and Pizzagate. So let this be a reminder lefties, no one gets between these sycophants and their kids, not even Twitter.
Twatter execs of course, are stunned at the ruling:
As soon as 230 is revoked, the law that protects them from being sued, for what a poster says and posts, then the social media sites will have to moderate heavily....So to protect themselves from being sued, for what a user posts.So you believe that slandering and defaming of someone is perfectly fine an should not have repercussions or remedy for the person being slandered?As soon as 230 is taken away in the USA, social .media and so called free speech, dies....
When they can be sued, for what users say.... then every word posted has to be moderated by them.... freedom is removed from everyone.
Like this calling one of our military a white supremacist because he has a Jesus tattoo on his arm and wanting him demoted for it?
View attachment 444550
What’s worse is that all of this nonsense, such as ‘revoking’ S. 230, is based on the ridiculous lie that social media seek to ‘silence’ conservatives, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.As soon as 230, the law that protects them from being sued, for what a poster says and posts, then the social media sites will have to moderate heavily....So to protect themselves from being sued, for what a user posts.So you believe that slandering and defaming of someone is perfectly fine an should not have repercussions or remedy for the person being slandered?As soon as 230 is taken away in the USA, social .media and so called free speech, dies....
When they can be sued, for what users say.... then every word posted has to be moderated by them.... freedom is removed from everyone.
Like this calling one of our military a white supremacist because he has a Jesus tattoo on his arm and wanting him demoted for it?
View attachment 444550
It will completely shut off, what we call, free speech.
I don't know the answer Rodishi... on how to prevent people from being lying, vicious, and hurtful people on social media... I simply stay away from it.....
I am just skeptical about this push to revoke 230 protections, because it is we the people, or at least those on social media, that are hurt the most....by social media, having to moderate with an iron fist, every post.
If someone issues libelous statements or slanderous speach and they open themselves to lawsuit for defamation , the issue remains whether the media outlet should be held accountable as well .So you believe that slandering and defaming of someone is perfectly fine an should not have repercussions or remedy for the person being slandered?
Like this calling one of our military a white supremacist because he has a Jesus tattoo on his arm and wanting him demoted for it?
The S.230 was setup so that social media outlets could not be sued or prosecuted for individuals posting content that could be subject to criminal prosecution , or could be subject to civil complaint for defamation .What’s worse is that all of this nonsense, such as ‘revoking’ S. 230, is based on the ridiculous lie that social media seek to ‘silence’ conservatives, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
If they take it down I would see where that works. Google slam a blog I put up about the bank's fraud. I wrote them and said 'If it is not true let them prove it as I have the proof they I committed fraud'. The blog was reinstated." Freedom Of Information "
* Hands Off Rules *
If someone issues libelous statements or slanderous speach and they open themselves to lawsuit for defamation , the issue remains whether the media outlet should be held accountable as well .So you believe that slandering and defaming of someone is perfectly fine an should not have repercussions or remedy for the person being slandered?
Like this calling one of our military a white supremacist because he has a Jesus tattoo on his arm and wanting him demoted for it?
In my opinion , the media outlet could be held accountable for libel if they were complicit in themselves knowingly issuing defamation statements ; however , online social media companies would be exempt from such a rule because they are not be able to evaluate the content prior to the statements being published by individuals , and only by a ruling of a judge from a civil trial , or active criminal prosecution , should the content be taken down from online social media .
If someone issues a threat for violence , it is a matter for law enforcement , and the statements should be taken down where prosecution is being pursued .
ISPs and social media outlets should abide by Net neutrality - Wikipedia , and only take action against actual crimes or by direction from judicial ruling that libel or slander has occurred .
The People vs. Larry Flynt - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
